Political Crossfire Forums

[sinneduy]

Robert E. Lee was a general with a conflicting mind. He didn't believe in the cause of slavery, but he did believe in state's rights, and he claimed, "I am a Virginian first, then I am an American."

However, I have theorized that Lee's belief affected him subconsciously when he entered Northern Territory at Gettysburg and Antietam.

If you look at his work in Gettysburg, Lee flanked the Union Line on its right, and pushed the Union forces back through the town. He then pushed the Union forces back to Cemetery Hill where he attempted to flank the Union line on its right again. He was repulsed, and as reenforcements arrived on Seminary Ridge to face down the Union line on Cemetery Ridge, Lee ordered an attack on the Union right Flank, Little Round Top, where they were repulsed again. On the third day, Lee grew desperate and attacked the middle with Pickett's charge.

Now, Lee did have a fair reasoning in ordering Pickett's Charge, the Union guns had gone silent, the field in front of him was fairly hilly, allowing for concealment during the charge. However, he chose to ignore the risks of his forces immeadiatly being flanked as they reached the Union line, and the consideration that the Union guns were ordered to stop firing.

Comparing what Lee did in chancellorville, Lee was not acting like Lee at all. Lee's favorite strategy is to flank the enemy. However, when that did not work, Lee would usually runa trap, retreating while leaving a force concealed behing enemy lines as the Union forces advanced.

However, a direct charge is something no good commander would do. Yes, it was unexpected, but it was just stupid. Sometimes the unexpected is the unexpected for a reason.

Just wondering whether you guys think this makes sense or not

[Xenophen]

Perhaps Lee was mentally weary from all the battles which affected his thinking process. Even heroes get tired sometimes. But I see what u are saying, but I dont know if his conflicting mind was the cause of it.

[sinneduy]

Xenophen wrote: Perhaps Lee was mentally weary from all the battles which affected his thinking process. Even heroes get tired sometimes. But I see what u are saying, but I dont know if his conflicting mind was the cause of it.

The Battle of Chancellorville, the previous battle, was about 2 months earlier. during the time between, Lee had simply advanced into Union territory and had his troops live off the Union supplies.

I don't know about you, but it doesn't take that much brainpower to do that.

[Lakedaimonios]

Lee lost his right hand man, Stonewall Jackson, at Chancellorsville. Without him, his lieutenants were decidedly more timid.

Even with Jackson, it would have been difficult for the Confederacy to win, though.

[Jehan]

There were several moments in Gettysburg when the Confederacy could have won but Lee's subordinates screwed up. On the first day, the Union troops were routed and had Ewell continued the assault it very likely could have become a complete route.

[sinneduy]

yea but he can get past that. you think they never screwed when they were back in the South? My point is that when they were repulsed, Lee didn't react like he usually does. he takes risks that when successful, put him in a position to flank the Union army. Even if Pickett's charge succeeded, the force that broke the line would have been immeadiatly flanked anyway.

[TNBiologist]

From what I have read Lee took the lose of Jackson very hard, he was Lee's best lieutenant and a friend as well. Between the personal feelings of lose and the lose of his best troop commander I would say that effected his mood and decisions in the battle. Personally I thin he should have listen to Longstreet and sent him up the flank instead of picket up the middle but that is a mute point now. I do believe that Lee shook off what ever was effecting him at Gettysburg.

[sinneduy]

yeah , but what about antietam?

[sinneduy]

Lakedaimonios wrote: Lee lost his right hand man, Stonewall Jackson, at Chancellorsville. Without him, his lieutenants were decidedly more timid.

Even with Jackson, it would have been difficult for the Confederacy to win, though.

that's absurd

Lee could have won easily without Jackson.

He came so close without Jackson

[superskippy]

Lee entered into command of a battlefield that was decididly not in his favor at the start of the 2nd day, the terrain did not really allow for the tactical movements and great risky manuevers which Lee had become famous for, the anchored hills and the town which served as an effective wall, forced Lee to attack the enemy in positions that the Union had already chosen. A wide daliance around the flank was infeasible when Longstreet suggested it, and became impossible when the Union army had effective control of the round tops giving them sight over the battlefield.

It wasnt that Lee wasnt up to par, it was that the battle was simply not one that worked to any of his great skills as a general, and his subordinates took little advantage on the first day as his presence did become strong until later in the day and as such his orders were very vague and open to interpretation.

[sailorman126]

I remeber seeing on the history or discover channel that the battlefield did not look as it does today. Streams and walls that are not here now would have been in the way of orginized troop movements. That might have been 1 reason to change tactics, others incude exaustion of the men, lack of supplies, how many sick, wounded ect. sometimes on paper you might have more numbers but the actaul number capable might be somethign compleatly difrent.

[Ellron]

One reason for Lee's bad decision was that he was sick.

In his journal that day he said he was sick with something.

[sinneduy]

sailorman126 wrote: I remeber seeing on the history or discover channel that the battlefield did not look as it does today. Streams and walls that are not here now would have been in the way of orginized troop movements. That might have been 1 reason to change tactics, others incude exaustion of the men, lack of supplies, how many sick, wounded ect. sometimes on paper you might have more numbers but the actaul number capable might be somethign compleatly difrent.

yes, i've been to the actual site. However, the difference isn't that much... according to the tour guide a lot of the forest there now was really open land, and there were farms there...

Even so, Robert E. Lee should have been at least smart enough to know he couldn't penetrate the Union lines at Little Round Top and Pickett's Charge.

Then again Hindsight is 20/20 so maybe not.

[sinneduy]

Ellron wrote: One reason for Lee's bad decision was that he was sick.

In his journal that day he said he was sick with something.

that's interesting. do you have a source/link for that?

[Fido]

Longstreet, I believe, said Lee was masterful at defense, and at Gettysburg he should have taken Longstreet's advice and relocated and fought a defensive battle elsewhere. I have been to Gettysburg and one of my grandfathers fought there with the 155 th Penn vol. on the sunny side of little round top. A more perfect killing zone cannot be imagined, (except Mary's heights) and the Union justly chanted Fredricksburg (where I have also been) as Picket's Charge came up the slope to them.
Lee suffered with exterior lines of communication, an offense he could not reinforce, and the lack of Jackson and Stewart, which meant lack of intelligence and audacity. He did not write his orders, and was not specific in his orders, so mis-communication was unavoidable.
On the other hand, the union had a commander who would fight and not run, even if he did not drive on to victory, and they had an army that could fight and did so when pushed. In no sense was Grant better than the Union commander, Meade. But grant was a bull dog, and the supply of union troops and engineering ability, and material was seemingly limitless.

[Fido]

soldierofchrist wrote: Lakedaimonios wrote: Lee lost his right hand man, Stonewall Jackson, at Chancellorsville. Without him, his lieutenants were decidedly more timid.

Even with Jackson, it would have been difficult for the Confederacy to win, though.
For sure. Jackson was perhaps just as sharp as Lee. The loss of Jackson, in my opinion, was the loss of the war for the Confederacy.

Jackson was a world class dumass. He mastered a few essential techniques for winning battles. One, was mystery, as I think he described it, which is the surprise attack; and the other was discipline

[sinneduy]

Fido wrote: Longstreet, I believe, said Lee was masterful at defense, and at Gettysburg he should have taken Longstreet's advice and relocated and fought a defensive battle elsewhere. I have been to Gettysburg and one of my grandfathers fought there with the 155 th Penn vol. on the sunny side of little round top. A more perfect killing zone cannot be imagined, (except Mary's heights) and the Union justly chanted Fredricksburg (where I have also been) as Picket's Charge came up the slope to them.
Lee suffered with exterior lines of communication, an offense he could not reinforce, and the lack of Jackson and Stewart, which meant lack of intelligence and audacity. He did not write his orders, and was not specific in his orders, so mis-communication was unavoidable.
On the other hand, the union had a commander who would fight and not run, even if he did not drive on to victory, and they had an army that could fight and did so when pushed. In no sense was Grant better than the Union commander, Meade. But grant was a bull dog, and the supply of union troops and engineering ability, and material was seemingly limitless.

First of all, Longstreet was the one with the great defensive tactics. Lee's strength was in doing things on the attack that the Union officers didn't even think of.

My point was that Lee didn't act like he normally did. If you look at Chancellorsville, Lee loves to use flanking movements, to the greatest extreme. and if you look at the battle lines on Day 2, taken his artiller to shoot down the Union lines, because they were in a fish hook and then attacked the bends. Lee didn't do this until the morning of th ethird day, and he didn't have any artillery attacking there.

[Fido]

TNBiologist wrote: I do believe that Lee shook off what ever was effecting him at Gettysburg.

He probably died from what was affecting him at Gettysburg, which was a heart condition.